I'm interested to hear this judges legal theory on how an injunction is appropriate here.
@UKnCincy if I understand things correctly, a preliminary injunction should only be given when the injured party is expected to win on the merits of the case. I don't see how that is possible.
The attorney’s argument is that the NCAA has, in effect, violated their own by-laws in declaring Wiseman ineligible at this time.
If the facts support that argument, then Wiseman has cause to sue due to the resulting injury. Just because you’re a private organization, that does not mean you’re immune from litigation. If a private organization fails to follow their own rules, breaches contracts or does other similar things, they open themselves up to lawsuits.
In this instance, the attorney is alleging that the the NCAA was fully aware of all of the relevant facts back in the spring and decided to declare Wiseman eligible anyway. The NCAA then revisited Wiseman’s eligibility recently without receiving any new information. In other words, the NCAA simply changed their minds without good reason. I’m skeptical of this argument, but if Wiseman’s attorney can prove that to be true, then the NCAA potentially has a problem.
Given that, and the fact that you can’t give Wiseman back any games he missed, I can understand why the judge granted this. It should be simple enough to quickly see if the facts support Wiseman’s argument. If the facts support the NCAA, then they can still go back and vacate the games afterwards.
